Are we using the correct Terms?

[Blacksmith58]

The term, "Concealed Carry" versus the term "Restricted Concealed Carry":

 

I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench into the frey, but, "Are we using the correct terms?"

 

The media will portray the term Concealed Carry as a Carte Blanch for ALL to carry concealed as a scare tactic. This is happening as we speak! We all know that the type of Concealed Carry we support would require additional background checks, training, approvals, initial issue licenses & renuals, fees, etc. This in fact is a Restricted Concealed Carry Process.

 

I think as part of a public education and a way of countering the Media's Scare Tactics, we should boldly state our case. I believe it is up to us as responsable Gun Owners to state the truth and not add to the confussion of the media. I hate the word restricted in front of Concealed Carry, but if it gets out the facts that there is a valid process for issue of permits, maybe it would ease the minds of folks like Pearl.

 

If we agree or not, it is a restricted process and stating the facts that there are criteria for getting the permit seems to be left out of the media! It's our job to get that word out!

 

Am I off base here, or do you think this is a good idea? Have you heard this line of explaination anywhere??? Don't lerk, answer up!

[junglebob]

Maybe "Licensed Concealed Carry" would be a good term. People understand that to get a drivers license, nursing license, real estate license etc. you have to meet certain standards, which normally includes training. I guess when we say it is associated with the natural right of self defense it seems odd. We don't require a license for people to excercise their right of free speech, or religion.

[whyzdom]

Right to Carry

License to Carry

Concealed Carry

 

 

So many to pick from.

[lockman]

The term, "Concealed Carry" versus the term "Restricted Concealed Carry":

 

I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench into the frey, but, "Are we using the correct terms?"

 

The media will portray the term Concealed Carry as a Carte Blanch for ALL to carry concealed as a scare tactic. This is happening as we speak! We all know that the type of Concealed Carry we support would require additional background checks, training, approvals, initial issue licenses & renuals, fees, etc. This in fact is a Restricted Concealed Carry Process.

 

I think as part of a public education and a way of countering the Media's Scare Tactics, we should boldly state our case. I believe it is up to us as responsable Gun Owners to state the truth and not add to the confussion of the media. I hate the word restricted in front of Concealed Carry, but if it gets out the facts that there is a valid process for issue of permits, maybe it would ease the minds of folks like Pearl.

 

If we agree or not, it is a restricted process and stating the facts that there are criteria for getting the permit seems to be left out of the media! It's our job to get that word out!

 

Am I off base here, or do you think this is a good idea? Have you heard this line of explaination anywhere??? Don't lerk, answer up!

 

That is not an all inclusive "we". I do not support fees or additional background checks. Your FOID card shows you have undergone a criminal background check. The chances of more thorough background checks coming up with a criminal disqualification after already running LEADS & NCIC is remote at best and not worth the additional fees the applicant would be charged for it.

 

As for training; The more you have the better mentally equipped you will be, the more that is required the less secure we all will be. Unreasonable training hurdles are a practical road block to self defense plain and simple. "WE" must keep in mind "WE" as concealed firearm carriers are not LEO's and our goal is PERSONAL protection not law enforcement or criminal apprehension.

 

I am a firm believer in a maximum requirement of a basic pistol course, safety instruction and a basic recitation of the states statutes on the use of deadly force. If the student want's to seek advanced instruction beyond this all the power to them.

 

One on one instruction you can cover all of the basics in less than 2 hours without the BS sessions.

[Blacksmith58]

The term, "Concealed Carry" versus the term "Restricted Concealed Carry":

 

I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench into the frey, but, "Are we using the correct terms?"

 

The media will portray the term Concealed Carry as a Carte Blanch for ALL to carry concealed as a scare tactic. This is happening as we speak! We all know that the type of Concealed Carry we support would require additional background checks, training, approvals, initial issue licenses & renuals, fees, etc. This in fact is a Restricted Concealed Carry Process.

 

I think as part of a public education and a way of countering the Media's Scare Tactics, we should boldly state our case. I believe it is up to us as responsable Gun Owners to state the truth and not add to the confussion of the media. I hate the word restricted in front of Concealed Carry, but if it gets out the facts that there is a valid process for issue of permits, maybe it would ease the minds of folks like Pearl.

 

If we agree or not, it is a restricted process and stating the facts that there are criteria for getting the permit seems to be left out of the media! It's our job to get that word out!

 

Am I off base here, or do you think this is a good idea? Have you heard this line of explaination anywhere??? Don't lerk, answer up!

 

That is not an all inclusive "we". I do not support fees or additional background checks. Your FOID card shows you have undergone a criminal background check. The chances of more thorough background checks coming up with a criminal disqualification after already running LEADS & NCIC is remote at best and not worth the additional fees the applicant would be charged for it.

 

As for training; The more you have the better mentally equipped you will be, the more that is required the less secure we all will be. Unreasonable training hurdles are a practical road block to self defense plain and simple. "WE" must keep in mind "WE" as concealed firearm carriers are not LEO's and our goal is PERSONAL protection not law enforcement or criminal apprehension.

 

I am a firm believer in a maximum requirement of a basic pistol course, safety instruction and a basic recitation of the states statutes on the use of deadly force. If the student want's to seek advanced instruction beyond this all the power to them.

 

One on one instruction you can cover all of the basics in less than 2 hours without the BS sessions.

 

I agree! FOID is fine with me. We are not cops -Agree! Basic Lessons - Agree!!! Fees - I've paid fees for other States Non-residents CCP/L, why would this state be anydifferent?. The point I'm trying to make is that there are RESTRICTIONS (Hoops to jump through) for getting CCW. No where (in the media) have I heard the mention of criteria for getting concealed carry!

 

I wasn't trying to debate the CRITERIA, just the fact that there IS criteria! The media is not putting that information out. They are supporting the Shoot out at the OK Corral mentality and I was trying to counter their illogic!

[Kaeghl]

Maybe "Licensed Concealed Carry" would be a good term. People understand that to get a drivers license, nursing license, real estate license etc. you have to meet certain standards, which normally includes training. I guess when we say it is associated with the natural right of self defense it seems odd. We don't require a license for people to excercise their right of free speech, or religion.

 

I agree with the term "Licensed Conceal Carry", simply because while the possibly frightening word "Conceal" is in there, it's preceded by the calming and official sounding word "Licensed", so that might go towards alleviating the fears of the GFW's and fence sitters.

 

Way back in time, we discussed this very topic, about the possibility of how the word conceal might cause some pantie-wetters to go have a public "Wahhh-fest" over the scary sounding word "Conceal", like it was illegal or something to be ashamed or frightened of.

 

Yeah, I'd vote for making refernce to the CCW proposal publically as "License to Conceal Carry" or just "License to Carry" in the future.

[Molly B.]

I agree with the term "Licensed Conceal Carry", simply because while the possibly frightening word "Conceal" is in there, it's preceded by the calming and official sounding word "Licensed", so that might go towards alleviating the fears of the GFW's and fence sitters.

 

Way back in time, we discussed this very topic, about the possibility of how the word conceal might cause some pantie-wetters to go have a public "Wahhh-fest" over the scary sounding word "Conceal", like it was illegal or something to be ashamed or frightened of.

 

Yeah, I'd vote for making refernce to the CCW proposal publically as "License to Conceal Carry" or just "License to Carry" in the future.

I agree - License to Carry

 

Molly B.

[TTIN]

I like RIGHT To Carry,but I umderstand where y'all are coming from.

[oneshot]

They'll find a way to twist whatever terms we use. I say that we don't let them call the dance for us. Besides, we say "self-loading rifle" they say "assault weapon", we say "standard capacity magazine" they say "high capacity". They don't really care what terms we use, they're going to give it the most sensational label they can because they're out for ratings, not the truth, not facts.

[Silver Guardian]

I agree with the term "Licensed Conceal Carry", simply because while the possibly frightening word "Conceal" is in there, it's preceded by the calming and official sounding word "Licensed", so that might go towards alleviating the fears of the GFW's and fence sitters.

 

Way back in time, we discussed this very topic, about the possibility of how the word conceal might cause some pantie-wetters to go have a public "Wahhh-fest" over the scary sounding word "Conceal", like it was illegal or something to be ashamed or frightened of.

 

Yeah, I'd vote for making refernce to the CCW proposal publically as "License to Conceal Carry" or just "License to Carry" in the future.

 

Nothing personal, but that cracked me up. The people who are scared, aren't going to relax based on the words you use. It's going to take a hard life lesson or a trip to the range to fix that fear.

[oneshot]

I agree with the term "Licensed Conceal Carry", simply because while the possibly frightening word "Conceal" is in there, it's preceded by the calming and official sounding word "Licensed", so that might go towards alleviating the fears of the GFW's and fence sitters.

 

Way back in time, we discussed this very topic, about the possibility of how the word conceal might cause some pantie-wetters to go have a public "Wahhh-fest" over the scary sounding word "Conceal", like it was illegal or something to be ashamed or frightened of.

 

Yeah, I'd vote for making refernce to the CCW proposal publically as "License to Conceal Carry" or just "License to Carry" in the future.

 

Nothing personal, but that cracked me up. The people who are scared, aren't going to relax based on the words you use. It's going to take a hard life lesson or a trip to the range to fix that fear.

 

I will say that when I was a kid and I assumed that conceal carry wasn't legal anywhere, the term did have a nefarious ring to it. As though you were hiding the fact that you were armed so you could go out and do evil. And hey, that's how the culture has morphed to see things in many corners. "Licensed" does give a more legitimized sound. But like I said, I don't think the anti's or the media will play ball, they'll use whatever term they like, most likely the one that will serve their ends, not ours.

[Lou]

Add my vote for License To Carry - LTC

[Kaeghl]

If they use whatever term they like, they fall into a semantics trap if it's jumped on quickly enough.

 

"Stop trying to charactorize this as something to be frightened of, by using so-called 'frightening' words. The people aren't as stupid as you believe them to be, they can see through your 'spin', and know you're insulting them with your arrogance. This is a "License to carry", NOT something to allow people to carry around a hidden gun just on their own whim."

 

That stomping, if delivered with the proper force and emphases on the correct words, would take the sails out of the anti-s rhetoric and turn the discussion back to the idea of this being a way to do things LEGAL, by LAW, and help direct the attention back to the reduction of criminal behavior by law-abiding citizens.

 

We have to actually 'sell' this idea to the general public, and that's done with the proper advertising and presentation. And that means squashing the other side's arguements with facts delivered in a way that is acceptable to the public.

 

Imagine for a moment. Charleton Heston delivering the Gettysburg address, with all the tricks of proper oratory, then listening to PeeWee Herman saying the same thing, but using PeeWee paraphrase in a PeeWee style. Who would you be more apt to want to listen to and then agree with?

[lockman]

License to Carry, I agree.

 

It can prevent statutory problems down the line.

 

Any restrictions or distinctions are addressed by specific language in the Statue.

 

We should state using LTC in our lexicon as a replacement for concealed carry since it addresses the big picture.

[abolt243]

License to Carry, I agree.

 

It can prevent statutory problems down the line.

 

Any restrictions or distinctions are addressed by specific language in the Statue.

 

We should state using LTC in our lexicon as a replacement for concealed carry since it addresses the big picture.

 

I prefer LTC. We already have the Right to Carry, but the gov't thinks we need a license. I agree, the FOID alrady fulfills many of the other states requirements to get their LTC. I'd vote for the following route to a LTC:

1) Show proof of basic safety training, (NRA, Hunter Safety, other LTC, other self defense courses, does not have to be specific to this license).

2) Be given a copy of the Use of Force statutes with a laymen's interpretation and sign a receipt saying you've read and understand it.

3) Show a valid copy of FOID.

 

All the above steps take place at the local Sheriff's office or can be mailed in. Sheriff then validates all the above and issues a LTC affadavit to the applicant. The applicant then takes or mails the affadavit to the county clerk if a County license or Sec of State or Dept of Professional Regulation in the case of a state LTC and recieves a holographic sticker on his/her FOID card to show LTC license. The first LTC could be pro-rated on the number of years left on the FOID.

 

Still gives the local sheriff some "control" or knowledge of who's getting LTC (they seem to want to know that) but doesn't put the whole responsibility of the issuance on them.

 

Makes the FOID actually do something, keeps it around (which will appeal to the doubters).

 

JMHO

AB

[Mr. Runyon]

License to Carry, I agree.

 

It can prevent statutory problems down the line.

 

Any restrictions or distinctions are addressed by specific language in the Statue.

 

We should state using LTC in our lexicon as a replacement for concealed carry since it addresses the big picture.

 

I prefer LTC. We already have the Right to Carry, but the gov't thinks we need a license. I agree, the FOID alrady fulfills many of the other states requirements to get their LTC. I'd vote for the following route to a LTC:

1) Show proof of basic safety training, (NRA, Hunter Safety, other LTC, other self defense courses, does not have to be specific to this license).

2) Be given a copy of the Use of Force statutes with a laymen's interpretation and sign a receipt saying you've read and understand it.

3) Show a valid copy of FOID.

 

All the above steps take place at the local Sheriff's office or can be mailed in. Sheriff then validates all the above and issues a LTC affadavit to the applicant. The applicant then takes or mails the affadavit to the county clerk if a County license or Sec of State or Dept of Professional Regulation in the case of a state LTC and recieves a holographic sticker on his/her FOID card to show LTC license. The first LTC could be pro-rated on the number of years left on the FOID.

 

Still gives the local sheriff some "control" or knowledge of who's getting LTC (they seem to want to know that) but doesn't put the whole responsibility of the issuance on them.

 

Makes the FOID actually do something, keeps it around (which will appeal to the doubters).

 

JMHO

AB

Abolt, I completely agree with you.

[flagtag]

We don't want to encourage "them" with a word like "restricted" instead of "licensed". Ask for "restricted" concealed carry and that just might suggest to them that they should put limitations on who, when, how, what, and where we carry.

[duke66]

I'm on board for "License to Carry".

[BobbyT]

Rights are not something you "license", and certainly legal "restrictions" mean rights are not being observed. Vermont-style carry, meaning the same way we treat other individual rights (granted by default without having to be "approved", a "that which is not forbidden is allowed" approach as opposed to "that which is not allowed is forbidden") is the only way not to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Begging to be allowed to begin the several month process of jumping through whatever hoops and paying whatever exorbitant fees the Statists' endlessly add in order to try to convince the powers that be to arbitrarily allow us to exercise our rights (and not one piece of this sentence is hyperbole...see DC's "enlightened" view of what the Supreme Court meant in its ruling) is unacceptable.

 

Don't be so desperate for the tiniest bit of progress that you're willing to put up with anything and accept abuse in the name of compromise. As Ayn Rand wrote, "evil requires the sanction of the victim", which she defined as "the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the 'sin' of creating values." In her view evil is a parasite that can only thrive when good people let it...so don't sanction it. Appropriately enough, I came across a page applying her concept to the 2nd Amendment:

 

Sanction of the Victim

 

His list is a good one, but asking for more chains for yourself like this should be #9. How many times have you read columns apologetically supporting 2A or the Heller decision while the author still falls all over himself to point out how much he supports "assault" weapon bans and all other manner of "reasonable" restrictions that fall short of a ban? You know by now that every time the term "reasonable" is used, it's DoubleSpeak meaning "any further restriction you'll accept until a de facto ban is in place". They're willing to take your freedoms as quickly as you'll hand them over, so don't do the work for them.

 

If from the very start the default is "restricted" carry, then from day one you've established that it's not a real right but a privilege always to be restricted. Those restrictions will become more burdensome every year as the same politicians add layer upon layer of "reasonableness". Regulations don't have a habit of removing themselves over time...

[Blacksmith58]

License to Carry, I agree.

 

It can prevent statutory problems down the line.

 

Any restrictions or distinctions are addressed by specific language in the Statue.

 

We should state using LTC in our lexicon as a replacement for concealed carry since it addresses the big picture.

 

I prefer LTC. We already have the Right to Carry, but the gov't thinks we need a license. I agree, the FOID alrady fulfills many of the other states requirements to get their LTC. I'd vote for the following route to a LTC:

1) Show proof of basic safety training, (NRA, Hunter Safety, other LTC, other self defense courses, does not have to be specific to this license).

2) Be given a copy of the Use of Force statutes with a laymen's interpretation and sign a receipt saying you've read and understand it.

3) Show a valid copy of FOID.

 

All the above steps take place at the local Sheriff's office or can be mailed in. Sheriff then validates all the above and issues a LTC affadavit to the applicant. The applicant then takes or mails the affadavit to the county clerk if a County license or Sec of State or Dept of Professional Regulation in the case of a state LTC and recieves a holographic sticker on his/her FOID card to show LTC license. The first LTC could be pro-rated on the number of years left on the FOID.

 

Still gives the local sheriff some "control" or knowledge of who's getting LTC (they seem to want to know that) but doesn't put the whole responsibility of the issuance on them.

 

Makes the FOID actually do something, keeps it around (which will appeal to the doubters).

 

JMHO

AB

Abolt, I completely agree with you.

 

Now we're starting to click! It show we are serious about this issue! I like License to Carry!

 

I like what BobbyT said as well. Vermont style Carry programs are sweet, but we are way passed that here and now. This is the fight we are in, and I for one, am in it to win it!

[lockman]

I believe we should be stressing the following fact about firearms and self defense in Illinois:

 

Illinois is the ONLY state to prohibit the concealed or open carry of firearms for self defense.

 

Illinois may be a rural open carry state but as a practical matter for self defense that point is utterly meaningless. Such restrictions place off limits the populated areas where self defense is most likely to be needed. If you cannot carry in virtually any place you have a legal right to be then the "right" is without substance.

 

In Illinois as a matter legal prohibition we stand isolated from the rest of the county.

[SAK]

+1 for replacing Concealed Carry with "License to Carry"

 

BobbyT, I completely agree with what you say. Some progress is better than none, however. The utilitarians/totalitarians/whatever you want to call them, they've had a game plan of slow, incremental but consistent change. We might have to get back some rights slowly and incrementally as well.

 

One approach is to support every pro-rights agenda. I don't believe in compromises, such as getting concealed carry but forcing gun registration on every gun owner in the state, etc. So, just don't lose ground. I understand that you probably feel the same was as I that any type of restriction, regulation, licensing, permitting, etc scheme is, from an idealogical point of view, a loss. But as long as the effect -- getting more people to carry guns -- is good, we should go for it.

 

I don't support bartering or deal-making that involves giving up any rights we may currently exercise without reprisal. Just because an unconstitutional law exists, doesn't mean the right is destroyed. It's still there, it's only infringed. However, from a practical standpoint, the right is gone if there is ANY sort of reprisal/coercion involved.

 

Well, in this era it's like that with nearly every right we have. Just about everything has been regulated, licensed, permitted, prohibited, or otherwise controlled. Coercion -- usually financial -- is used for every type of undesired behavior.

 

However, there's hope through public education/awakening. What really needs to happen is a spiritual awakening. So, we can try for that. But short of that, we might as well hold the lines and maybe gain a few inches here and there and continue on. No one should make any mistake that the contest for freedom never ends. No matter when you live, where you live, etc, there is always someone trying to infringe upon your rights for their own benefit. PERIOD. There's NO EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE.

 

So, accept it, accept that it's a battle, fight honorably and justly, and do what you can.

 

The right to carry is so dear to me because I can't think of any other right that's more natural, inherent, inate, and fundamental as the right to self defense against an agressor. That's the reason I spend time on this stuff. One man or woman being able to defend themselves without reprisal is worth it to me.

[Ol'Coach]

I believe we should be stressing the following fact about firearms and self defense in Illinois:

 

Illinois is the ONLY state to prohibit the concealed or open carry of firearms for self defense.

 

Illinois may be a rural open carry state but as a practical matter for self defense that point is utterly meaningless. Such restrictions place off limits the populated areas where self defense is most likely to be needed. If you cannot carry in virtually any place you have a legal right to be then the "right" is without substance.

 

In Illinois as a matter legal prohibition we stand isolated from the rest of the county.

 

 

49 other states got it right:

 

THE UNALIENABLE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE!

[chicago guy]

I agree with Abolt, but I'm worried about the part played by local officials. Here in CHICAGO any "may issue" kind of statute will result in a "you wish" result. The locals can handle the paperwork, if that makes them happy, but I'd like "shall issue" language in the statute.